Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum railed against former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsmans statement that the Republican Party risks becoming the anti-science party.

Speaking to a group of about 90 people at the Beacon Drive-In in Spartanburg, SC, a popular stop for presidential candidates, Santorum did not mention Gov. Huntsman by name but brought up his fellow candidates assertions, made on TV and via Twitter, that the Republican Party would have a huge problem if it became hostile to evolution and climate change.

I think elements of the GOP certainly are. I think it's hard to believe that wing of the GOP believes in anything approaching logical positivism. I think it goes much deeper than just denying climate science or biological science. These are the sorts of people who believe that a person who can coerce another person is fundamentally more valuable than a person who understands how anything works, because the person of force can always make the person of knowledge do what they wish. The reason they don't believe in climate science is that they don't believe in the scientific method itself. I wish they understood how deeply incompatible with their own supposedly libertarian worldview that is.

1. Blatantly denying that evolution is just as much a fact as gravity is.
2. Instead of just arguing for less government intervention in environmental matters, which wouldn't be that unreasonable from the perspective of the party of business, they completely deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change, going against 97% of the experts on the subject.
3. Pushing for abstinence-only sex education, which clearly. Does. Not. Work.
4. Saying that homosexuality is unnatural and/or curable.
5. Believing in voodoo economics and completely made-up "facts" such as that lowering taxes increases revenue (and the reverse)[1][2].

And wait, isn't it Santorum who said that "there's no such thing as global warming?"

Yeah, it really worries me how the GOP's short-term "business interests" seem to have gotten in the way of recognizing anthropogenic climate change, let alone dealing with it...

You can call it anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, or even anti-science in general, and I think you'll find it fits all too well with many currently popular possible Republican presidential candidates. In all the crazy, it's really a shame that Huntsman doesn't get more attention, because maybe if the others saw that people approved of his rationality, they'd move more towards the centre? </wishful thinking>

It's not just Republicans who deny science and climate change. In the major coal producing state in the U.S. it's extremely difficult to find any political leader who will publicly admit climate change is a real threat.

West Virginia is a good example. It's a state that's nearly 100% controlled by the Democratic party. But because its a "coal state", it's hard to find a single elected official from the state who will admit coal is bad for people and the environment. The Democratic leadership in West Virginia has denied virtually any and all of the scientific studies that dare to reveal the environmental dangers of mountaintop removal, including the West Virginia University study that linked mountaintop removal to birth defects among Appalachian residents.

America itself has had a tinge of anti-intellectualism woven throughout its history, all the way to the founding fathers. The GOP is just taking it to the extreme as they are with everything right now.

It's not due to ignorance -- it's because the Energy Barons wouldn't have it any other way. For the typical 21st century Robber Baron, buying off politicians is far cheaper than investing in alternative energy.

I don't think republicans are actually anti-science. It may appear that way because they don't immediately and automatically assume that science is right when it conflicts with various beliefs and interests they have....... however, when they can see a way to make a buck off of science then they're apt to be hugely pro-science.

1. Blatantly denying that evolution is just as much a fact as gravity is.
2. Instead of just arguing for less government intervention in environmental matters, which wouldn't be that unreasonable from the perspective of the party of business, they completely deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change, going against 97% of the experts on the subject.
3. Pushing for abstinence-only sex education, which clearly. Does. Not. Work.
4. Saying that homosexuality is unnatural and/or curable.
5. Believing in voodoo economics and completely made-up "facts" such as that lowering taxes increases revenue (and the reverse)[1][2].

And wait, isn't it Santorum who said that "there's no such thing as global warming?"

Click to expand...

Ron Paul says that, gravity is only a theory and is a theory that he does not believe in. -_-

Hey guys, the earth's climate has been changing forever. It does this always. It's either going up, or going down. It does not mean that we are going to melt or freeze (although the NYT likes to publish both of those predictions fairly often).

The fourth IPCC report even states that water vapor in the atmosphere is not only the most import factor in climate modeling, but it is also the least understood by climatologists. Point being, they have no idea how hot or cold the earth will be in 100 years. At the very least, the evidence is no where near compelling enough to justify more government regulation.

climate alarmism = government expansion. Government funds the vast majority of climate research.

climate alarmism = government expansion. Government funds the vast majority of climate research.

Click to expand...

So you're essentially anti-science then. Why can't you just come out and say it?

Federal research funding is responsible for the proliferation of American creativity. There's simply no doubt about it. If it weren't for federal dollars the US wouldn't have sent a man to space and wouldn't have made the enormous strides in cancer/Aids/health that we have.

The Flu Epidemic of 1918 was why George Hopkins became such an amazing research university and was also responsible for standardizing educational requirements. Even in the late 1800s, many 'medical' colleges admitted students solely on the basis of being able to pay the fees. Without funds being concentrated at institutions that have already proven themselves to be capable of thorough research, the US would remain an uneducated backwater. Private industry wasn't interested or capable of directing such research.

Your anti-government is going to bite you in the hind end if it means no more funding for basic science research. Ah, but you don't really care do you, your god will take of you.....

Hey guys, the earth's climate has been changing forever. It does this always. It's either going up, or going down. It does not mean that we are going to melt or freeze (although the NYT likes to publish both of those predictions fairly often).

Click to expand...

It's not just the change, but the speed of change which will outpace the ability of nations and entire species to adapt. Moreover, because of the complex interactions between atmosphere and oceans, the rapid change will accelerate some nasty trends, including droughts and hurricanes. Some regions will get wetter, some drier, some warmer and some colder.

Quote

The fourth IPCC report even states that water vapor in the atmosphere is not only the most import factor in climate modeling, but it is also the least understood by climatologists. Point being, they have no idea how hot or cold the earth will be in 100 years. At the very least, the evidence is no where near compelling enough to justify more government regulation.

Click to expand...

Yes, but CO2 heating is independent of water vapor and research suggests that water vapor's rise and fall is both highly localized  except in the upper Troposphere *and follows the rise of CO2. So, while the models might be wrong, it means they're wrong in a direction that means things will get worse more quickly.
So, pinning down water vapor will only add more credence to Climate Change, not less.

Quote

climate alarmism = government expansion. Government funds the vast majority of climate research.

Click to expand...

The government funds the vast majority of research. Full stop.

And, government doesn't have to be the prime mover of change, it just is because corporations see little advantage in moving ahead without government involvement.

Essentially, you're arguing that the army should move without both scouts and logistical support. And, the army isn't going to do that, but for some reason no one wants to listen to the scouts.

And this is exactly why the GOP is anti-science. Rather than acknowledging that thousands of scientists are probably more interested in good data and truth, the GOP assumes that they're on the take. However, I think its just transference since many of the leading "climate skeptics" are actually on the take by oil and gas companies.

Ron Paul says that, gravity is only a theory and is a theory that he does not believe in. -_-

Edit: Woops, I meant evolution not gravity. Oopsies!

Click to expand...

If one is fair, the evidentiary basis for the theory of evolution is probably not quite as strong as it is for either the Newtonian or relativistic theories of gravity. Also it's important to recognize levels of theory and levels of proof. It is one thing to say that the relativistic theory of gravity has an extremely strong evidentiary basis (although most physicists think it needs some kind of modification in order to account for quantum mechanical fields), it's another thing to say that the well-validated nature of the mechanics of relativistic theory point to one specific cosmology explaining the origin of the universe -- they don't. Similarly, the mechanistic process of evolutionary theory has a good evidentiary basis (although it's harder to test than relativity is). That doesn't mean necessarily that this theory explains everything about how life came to be on earth or that it demands that life have evolved or that life like ours should have evolved.

In physics, theories are generally evalauted on the basis of their ability to make verifiable predictions. A good theory is one that explains all the existing data and explains at least one new thing that other theories could not explain. Relativistic gravity explains so much that finding evidence of how a theory of gravity that reconciles with quantum field theory, like a string theory, would differ is very hard. Similarly, there are lots of things it is difficult to prove are consistent with evolutionary theory. However, there is no alternate scientific (not metaphysical) theory that explains as much of the data in a verifiable way as evolutionary biology and also explains something evolutionary biology cannot.

In science, that's what it means to accept a theory. Whenever we talk about "believing" in a theory as if it were a god, we're as guilty as anyone else for having abandoned the fundamental underlying sensibility of science.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.